Legal Opinion · Dissent

Clark v. Dalman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1967No. Calendar 19, Docket 51,332Published

1DissentKelly, J.

I agree with, my Brother’s reason why plaintiff cannot recover under count one. Justice Kavanagh states:

“Since the plaintiff was not a party to the contract in any sense of the term, he cannot enforce an obligation created by it. Neither the contract nor any of its provisions was designed to give him a benefit of any kind.”

I disagree with his finding that plaintiff can rely on that same contract to maintain his action in tort.

No decision of this or any other State has been called to attention that would give the right to plaintiff to rely upon and prove the provisions of a contract between…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Tuttle v. George H. Gilbert Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  2. Dallas Hotel Co. v. FoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
  3. Rice v. Goodspeed Real Estate Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Clumfoot v. St. Clair Tunnel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Jones v. Michigan Racing Assoc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1956

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API